A reader writes:
In the parish I go to, I have discovered, many months ago, that the priest’s homily is always downloaded from the internet. It has gotten so that each Sunday, I would pick up a couple of key words said during the homily and then google those when I get home. Invariably, I would find the homily that he had delivered to our parish.
It is disappointing to me, because now I do not feel that the priest is actually devliering a ‘personal’ homily (whatever that means). Is it alright for a priest to be doing this? I was wondering if there was any Church law on homilies that touch on this matter.
I know that it’s diappointing when one realizes that a priest is not writing his own homilies, but there is no law against it.
THUS HOMILY SERVICES ABOUND ON THE INTERNET (AND IN PRINT).
Priests may offer different reasons for why they use such services. Some, for example, might appeal to how busy they are and argue that with the shrinking number of priests they are ever busier and thus more unable to find time to write a weekly homily.
If that is genuinely the case for a particular priest, then using a homily service is perfectly legitimate and praiseworthy as a way of obtaining (what one hopes is) quality material to present to one’s flock.
Too often, though, many might have trouble giving credence to this argument. To many laity, a large number of priests today give the appearance of being lazy lumps who do not have any idea how easy they’ve got it compared to people with jobs and families and who have an appalling bad "customer service" attitude that would make it difficult for them to hold down a job in the secular world if it involved working with the public.
The contrast with other priests who have a real work ethic, who do things expeditiously, and who make themselves available to people (without giving the appearance of being put-upon) is dramatic.
But then it’s probably always been that way. Chaucer would have had very little trouble getting Fr. Modern Put-Upon into the Canterbury Tales.
It also doesn’t seem that it should take that long to come up with a homily. As a public speaker who speaks on biblical subjects on a regular basis, I think that for a professional who preaches every week it should take no more than thirty minutes max (and that’s being generous) to come up with a good, basic five or ten minute homily explaining what the readings mean and what we can learn from them.
In fact, I think that (if I were a priest who reads the Bible and who’s been speaking for more than a handful of years), I’d be able to read the readings, think about them for five minutes, and then be able to get up and speak informatively about them for five or ten minutes in an extemporaneous fashion. (I say that because I’ve gotten to the point in my own speechifying that I normally know my subject well enough that I can talk extemporaneously based on a little prior reflection to think through the points I want to make.)
The trouble is that most priests don’t want to give good, basic homilies. They seem to think that they’ve got to be Deep and Inspiring and as a result they clutter up their homilies with all kinds of extraneous elements designed to make them seem Deep and Inspiring and that actually distract from telling us what the readings are about.
For example, how often do you have a priest start a homily with one of those patented Anecdotes Of Dubious Historicity That Are Only Connected To The Readings In The Most Tenuous Manner Imaginable? (Or the even worse Joke Of Dubious Humor Value That Everyone Feels Obliged To Chuckle At So As Not To Be Rude.)
It’s like they teach ’em in seminary that it’s not okay to approach the readings directly, that they must only be approached obliquely.
A number of years ago, someone caught me overusing anecdotes and pointed out that what I said would be a lot more powerful if I said what I wanted to say straight out instead of trying to cloak it in a disguise that might be emotionally meaningful for me but likely would only confuse or bore others. I didn’t like it when he told me that, but he was right, and I wish more priests learned the same lesson.
The problem is that you can’t be Profound every week, and if you
try, you’ll fail. The solution is not to try to be Profound every week
and only go for profundity when you yourself are feeling particularly
inspired.
But rather than do this, many priests use artsy tricks to try to create the appearance of profundity.
Some priests even seem to have definite literary forms worked out for their homilies. One priest who I see preach regularly (and who I suspect is using a homily service) always, always starts his homily with an Anecdote of Dubious Historicity and then languidly gets around to maybe, kinda discussing the readings and then summing up by formulating things into a kind of "Do I want to be this kind of person or that kind of person?" question, at which point he says "You decide!" and walks back to the chair.
Same thing each time I see him preach. Every. Single. Time.
How much more refreshing it would be if he cut the "artsy" stuff and simply began by saying, "In today’s Gospel, Jesus tell us that . . . " or "In the second reading, St. Paul says that . . . "
What a breath of fresh air that would be! Straight into the subject without having to sit through an iffy anecdote or joke!
The poor state of contemporary homiletics is really criminal, because with the Church in the condition it is at present, the faithful desperately need to be instructed in their faith. The homily is the one time that the priest can really reach his core audience with instruction in the faith, and wasting the opportunity on a bunch of fluffle is simply unsupportable in the present environment (or, for that matter, in any environment).
What counts is getting people instructed in their faith and how the readings relate to that.
Which brings up a point.
I can think of one really good, iron-clad reason for using a homily service: If a priest has found a particular service that consistently delivers quality homilies that are better than the ones he could write himself then it is not only legitimate but also praiseworthy for him to use it. He is doing something that genuinely will better serve the people to whom he ministers.
More power to him!
In fact, in olden days it was common for great preachers (e.g., Cardinal Newman)–and great non-Catholic preachers (e.g., John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon)–to publish books of their homilies and sermons for the edification of other priests and ministers and even the faithful.
I don’t see a problem with that.
Given the technology of the time, these homilies were distributed by book or booklet rather than being downloadable from the Internet, but they still provided the function of helping priests (and, in the Protestant community, ministers) of delivering higher quality material than they otherwise would have.
I thus don’t so much have a problem with contemporary homily services in themselves.
I have a problem with the quality of the fluff they churn out.
I had no idea these existed until one week when I excitedly e-mailed my sister-in-law a homily given by a priest who is a family friend to us all. She responded saying her pastor used the exact same homily. I was more than a little disappointed. The family friend priest I consider a real “JPII man” and the other, well I’m not sure why he is even Catholic, let alone a priest. I found it strange that they’d be using the same homily service.
I sometimes go to daily mass at the university where I work. I get more out of the 5 minute extemporaneous homilies the priests give, probably because they teach the stuff everyday and speak mostly to the readings.
One reason that I always relish attending Mass said by Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput is that he always goes straight to the readings. He has showed me time and again how rich the Scriptures are and how relevant they are to our time. (His recent homilies can be found here.)
Plus, an added benefit of this approach is that it has the power to draw in our separated Christian brethren, who dearly love the Scriptures.
Too often, though, many might have trouble giving credence to this argument. To many laity, a large number of priests today give the appearance of being lazy lumps who do not have any idea how easy they’ve got it compared to people with jobs and families and who have an appalling bad “customer service” attitude that would make it difficult for them to hold down a job in the secular world if it involved working with the public.
I’ve always assumed that priests who seem to have little time for individual parishioners are just very busy, not lazy.
Also, one thing I learned in Toastmasters is that speakers are usually consistent, whether they are good or bad. We might find out just how bad homilies can be if priests were to stop using homily-o-matic services.
Then there is “Father Clever,” who gets up every week and says with a sneer, “A lot of people think this reading is about (whatever it’s obviously about). Nah. What this is about is (something to do with being an ‘unjudging’ liberal).” The only thing more annoying is when he has Sister Clever fill in for him.
When I was busily reverting back to the faith, I went through a couple Protestant churches. One of the most difficult things to leave behind was the great preaching. These guys would get up there to talk about the Scripture and would almost start diagramming sentences. It was wonderous.
It was painful to go from that to the milquetoast homilies at the local Catholic student center. But, hey, the truth is the truth. Without Catholic Answers, EWTN and Scott Hahn, I never would have known it though.
Can’t deacons do the homilies?
It looks like the average priest’s workload will increase significantly over the next few decades, so we should be encouraging more married laymen who are particularly skilled at preaching and sermon-writing to take on this vocation.
And there’s nothing to stop an active parishoner with talent and a little free time from offering to help father write his homilies.
I also don’t see anything wrong with father taking a really good homily written by Cardinal Newman, Pope Gregory the Great or Father Whatshisname over at EWTN and giving it to his audiences. He could even mention it by saying something like “This sermon on today’s gospel was first given by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century, and it is as relevent to us today as it was then” or “I was watching mass on EWTN the other day and Father Whoever gave an excellent sermon on a very important topic that you need to hear, so I’m going to give it to you”.
I know I could have benefitted tremendously from this when I was growing up. Instead of meat I was given tofu.
Oh gosh, I have never heard a priest give a good homily. Coming from a Protestant background, I’d leave the service feeling spiritually energized and newly in love with God thanks to the Bible-packed sermons. One of the things I miss about my old faith 🙁
Also, why are we Catholics locked into this pattern of behaviour that all preaching is performed by a priest within the context of a mass?
Perhaps the laity could rise up and organize hour-long Protestant-style sermons once a month. Heck, maybe even women could speak at one of these events (gasp!).
🙂
Wasn’t this sort of participation of the laity something that was envisioned by Vatican II?
Ummm… No?
In my last post I was speaking of sermons given as separate events, and apart from any mass, not that women/laypeople should give homilies at mass.
I think I’ve just discovered a new law of the internet.
Billy’s Law:
In any religiously based internet discussion, if a particular post can be interpreted in both an orthodox or heterodox manner, any other reader will invariably assume the heterodox position was meant.
Funny you should mention that.
Catholic Answers has this speakers’ bureau, see, and . . .
I don’t think you are ever going to find satisfaction in a 10 minute sermon. Over the past 1 or 2 months I’ve been regularily traveling to St. Josephat’s Basilica in Milwaukee. It took a little getting used to having an hour and half service, but it gave the good Father enough time to develop two or three thoughts.
Not being too divorced from Baptist sermons, I’m not so sure the teaching is the problem. My wife’s evangelical church serves marshmellow fluff and makes you feel a little smarter than when you walked in the door. The thing that seems to lack is any exhortation in Seeker as well as Catholic circles. The think the thing I love most about the Basilica is the constant call to holiness, none of this “as I am” garbage.
I must take exception to some of the remarks of the previous posters. I have attended Catholic Mass without fail for the last five years. Circumstances being as they have been, I have been compelled to sample the literary wares of Roman-rite priests of liberal, conservative, and traditionalist dispositions, as well as Byzantine and Antiochene-rite priests. Prior to that, and pro-rating for spotty attendance, I listened to about a dozen years of sermons by Anglican vicars. I have been to the local American Baptist and United Methodist services. Now, I have heard wretched music and seen willfully shabby and even irregular liturgies over the last five years, but I have also heard preaching that has scarcely any peer in those segments of liberal Protestantism I have in the past found myself.
One homiletic trick I hate is when the preacher tells you how he came up with the idea of the sermon. It rarely is worth the ego trip. It’s even worse when he tells you how he couldn’t bother to prepare a homily…. This is so common in Catholic churches that I could scream.
I highly commend the collections of sermons by Rev. Peter Gomes of Harvard’s Memorial Church (as Plummer Professor of Christian Morals for over 30 years), which are gathered and published after each term by the Harvard University Press. In Boston, I get to hear him (and his inimitable voice) on radio (WHRB) after going to Mass, and he is very often a compelling preacher in top form. Often (not always), his content would be far more orthodox than what passes for homilies in many Catholic churches. He’s a complex bird, but his sermons usually make you work.
I have never heard a priest of Opus Dei give a bad homily. Sometimes the homily is not a direct discussion of the scripture, but on those instances the scripture reading is a springboard for an examination of some aspect of Catholic piety, a virtue, or something else spiritually nourishing.
For those of you who have never heard Rev. Gomes, here is a link to his sermon for the Second Sunday of Advent 5 months ago, entitled “What If We Get It Wrong?”
http://www.memorialchurch.harvard.edu/media/sermon_12.05.04.m3u
Another good reason to use these is when the priest is not speaking in his first language. We had a Filipino priest who said many of our English Masses, but was also responsible for the Spanish masses. When he spoke at the Spanish masses, he read a canned homily becase he said it was hard for him to compose well enough in his third language of Spanish.
I’ve heard of a Protestant who became a Catholic — and said that what convinced him of the Real Presence was that something had to draw Catholics to Mass, and it sure wasn’t the preaching.
I will note that it is not a new problem. George MacDonald wrote a novel that began with a young curate who had left a plentiful supply of sermons by an — uncle I think. One day (for various reasons), he hunted through them for one he really approved of. The next day, one of his parshioners sent him a note that he had noticed it was a sermon by — I forget the name, famous Anglican.
The May/June 2005 issue of “This Rock” has an article entitled, “How the U.S. Bishops Are Changing–and Why.” The subtitle suggests a direction that many priests might themselves undertake. Here’s the subtitle.
“After decades of ‘pastoral’ bishops, there seems to be a new model: teaching bishops.”
There has been a historic geographical divide in the world of Catholic theology. Academically serious dogmatic theology has historically been much stronger in central Europe; whereas the Unites States has led the way in the development of pastoral theology. When I was a student in Rome (1988 to 1991) most of the available texts recommended for our study of pastoral theology were from English-speaking writers. Conversely, most of our texts for the study of dogmatic theology were European. In one of the study seminars I participated, several of my European classmates and professors asserted–more than once, to my embarassment–“There is no American dogmatic theology.” One reason for American domination of pastoral theology might be connected to the U.S. being a missionary Church throughout the 1800’s and even into the 1900’s.
Prior to studying in Rome, I spent a year at an American theologate, and had a Swiss classmate who affirmed to me that he found even our pamphlets for the laity (such as pamphlets for engaged couples) to have a pastoral richness and pedagogical accessibility that simply did not exist in Europe.
This geographical “nonintegration” of pastoral and dogmatic theology has been bad for both sides of the Atlantic. Separate halves of a cafeteria have been open on separate shores for too long.
The article in “This Rock” mentions a few U.S. bishops who are stronger teachers, rather than what I would call mere “pastoral managers.” It seems to me that the strong teachers are also the bishops who are attracting numerous men to the seminary.
The appointing of an American, Levada, as head of the CDF is a STRIKING historical shift. Can this be a sign that an integration of dogmatic and pastoral theological worlds is taking place?
As a priest, I take my obligation to preach seriously. The “homily slot” is somewhat my one and only weekly chance to reach the minds of parishioners. However, the other big chance is also the manner in which I celebrate the Mass. I believe that the best way to “pastor” a flock during the worship of God is to conduct myself in a worshipful way. Only if I am actively, intentionally, mindfully worshipping … only then am I leading the faithful at worship.
Watching Pope John Paul II celebrate Mass over the years, I found that the most prayerful moment for me was when a deacon would read the Gospel. During that moment of the Mass, it always seemed to me that the Holy Father would “step out of the way” (since someone else, a deacon, was now in the limelight), and the Holy Father would just “descend/ascend” into a worshipful attentiveness, letting the Divine Pastor and Teacher call out to his body, heart and mind. I always found that. Most often he would shut his eyes, furrow his brows in concentration, lower his head against his crozier….
Back to my topic…. A homily must also be an act of worship. A priest owes the faithful his worshipful preparation.
Question: If the priest uses a ‘canned’ homily, does it have to be a sermon written by a priest?
If it was not written by a priest, then does that constitute a homily by a layman? (written by a layman, albeit delivered by a priest)
I would rather have a canned, Faith filled homily than a limp, marshmallow, ‘God lurvs you’ and ‘save the refugees’ or a ‘devout Catholics are spiritual elitists’ type of homily such as we have to endure at my parish in Australia.
I wouldn’t think a canned homily would have to be written by a priest. If he gives it, he’s taking responsibility for the content, and that’s what counts: does this man have the authority to take responsibility for what is said from the pulpit?
Agreed, Sharon. Canned veggies are better than fresh cow-pats any day.
Haw-Haw!! Well said, Jon!
While we’re on the subject, is it wrong to tune out during a particularly bad, fluff-filled homily? I usually bring a devotional book (Praying In The Presence Of Our Lord with St. Padre Pio) with me to Mass because the homilies really do not do anything but annoy me. I sit and read and gaze wistfully at the Tabernacle with the background noise of uncomfortable laughter as Father tells another bad joke. So, is it wrong for me to do so?
Dear R.V.Miole,
In my opinion, tuning out an authentically bad homily is not wrong. However, if you’re going to read anything during the homily, you might consider reading/reflecting/studying the Gospel of the day. In that way, you listen to the Lord speak (his voice is in his Gospel) as you sit at his feet (he is in the Blessed Sacrament). Even just slowly reading the text over and over again is a great thing.
A few weeks ago, I was at Mass out of town. The priest ACTUALLY said “I have nothing to say, so I’m just blabbing away, hoping something touches you.”
I really, really, REALLY wished that priest would have used a canned homily. The good Dominicans I usually go to can write them very well. (although one told me that the reason that they were moved every 3 years was so that they just used the same homilies over and over, and that was the length of the cycle of readings).
A thought on behalf of corny jokes – they are all new to my teenagers and pre-teens, and therefore a bit funnier. It does get their attention, even if my husband and I are rolling our eyes. The kids are still talking about our previous pastor’s jokes and we moved away almost 18 months ago. (his jokes were quite funny, followed by a stellar homily).
Laughter is a bit of a tension release, and some folks are more relaxed and inclined to listen.
p.s. lets get the homilies improved before we request 1 1/2 hour services! This is very difficult with small children, but I like to have them with me so we can admire the statues, stained glass, listen for the bells, etc.
At a weekday Mass at Gesu parish on the Marquette U campus, I once heard an elderly Jesuit give the following homily:
“So, what does Jesus mean when he says ___? Darned if I know. Let’s get on with the Mass.”
I gave him points for honesty. I’d heard too many priests there (and elsewhere) try to BS their way through a homily.
Re: Jimmy’s comment about priests/deacons cutting to the chase, avoiding anecdotes, bad jokes, etc.
If anecdotes and jokes are done correctly, they can really bring people in to the homily and be very useful. Let’s remember that the Scriptures have several senses – the literal and spiritual, and within spiritual the allegorical, moral and anagogical sense. I think most priests who employ anecdotes/jokes are focusing their homilies on the moral sense of the Scriptures, which is not a bad thing to do.
And I agree with Fr. Pedrano that preaching really needs to be something priests and deacons focus on. No, the homily is not the reason for the Mass nor its most important part. We’re there for the Eucharist and participation in the Divine Feast – not for the homily, the great music, etc. But many Catholics don’t come to church because homilies don’t engage them. If we can bring them in with engaging homilies that really do teach, then we need to focus on that. We should keep all priests and deacons in our prayers, as well as those who teach homiletics.
I am in total agreement with Jimmy and his asertion that what Catholics really need right now, especially here in the U.S is an education in their faith. I’ll be sitting in Mass and we’ll read the story of the son returning to his father after his wild days and I’ll be thinking, oh wow this just screams out Confession and they should talk about it because it’s all over this reading, and does it come up? Nope, I’ve never heard it adressed and though I’ve heard some awesome homilies in my time, I think that education within the readings is so so important. I came back to the Church because I hadn’t been fair and I hadn’t learned why we believed the things we do, or why we do the things we do, now that I know, the more I am in love with the truth and teachings of the Church and they are all over the Bible and in the readings. It is a diservice to the faithful not to educate them about their faith, and I aplaud the great Priests, both those I know personally and those I don’t, who do their best to teach the faithful. And as for the faithful, there isn’t any excuse to not know your faith. I’m blind and can’t wander over to a local book store and pick up a copy of the catikism, so I go on line and find stuff that way. I’m not saying that all Catholics are lazy, far from it, but I think, right now, education is the key.
I’m with the commentor who would rather hear a decent canned homily than self-indulgent, mindless dreck. Really.
It is mostly a preparation issue. Most priests have to preach every day at least once, not counting funerals, weddings, etc. They usually begin with great intentions, but then life, unfortunatley makes it more of a challenge to adequately prepare.
I have limited sympathy, however, since I was a classroom theology teacher and, in essence, preached a kind of homily 5 times a day, 5 days a week for nine years. It gets to be instinctual – connect what’s being heard (the readings, etc) with your hearers’ lives in a meaningful way.
It is good and more beneficial for a priest to prepare a homily for his spiritual growth and the growth of his listeners. He may use other books and commentories for better understanding of the Holy Scriptures but he has to apply it to the needs of his congregation. And he is to ask himself: if I were to be listening to such mesage, what would be my benefit in my spiritual life? It is true that some priests are too busy to find enough time to prepare homilies but they are encouraged to do so. For faithful, I see a need for them to support their priest in all their capacity and understand him and pray for more vocation to priesthood to have enough pastors who will feed them with the Word. I therefore agree with those who feel that sometimes homilies discourage us.However if this happens, we should not lose hope as longer as we receive the Eucharist which nourishes us. We pray to the owner of the harvest to send more labourers in his fields. Dear friends, “never grow tired of doing what is right” (1Thes 3:13): pray for more vocations and commitment to the priestly ministry.
If I ever get my phd in theology I would love to do two semester homiletics class where the first semester the students would immerse themselves in the patristic writing and homilies and write in styles, themes, etc similar to what is found in the patristics. The second semester would focus more on writing, preaching, and examining more “modern” homilies. Wishful thinking.